Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: Supreme Court

Judicial Mind Must Prevail, Not Rote Precedent: Calcutta High Court Reinstates Need for Fair Hearing in Kutty’s Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has underscored the fundamental principle of fair hearing in legal proceedings. The Court, led by Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul), allowed Criminal Revision (CRR 2496 of 2022) filed by Sujay Kutty against the State of West Bengal, setting aside the orders of the lower courts which were passed without proper consideration of the merits of the case.

Brief on Legal Point: The Court emphasized the paramountcy of the petitioner’s right to a fair hearing, stating that dismissal of the petitioner’s revision solely based on the High Court’s earlier order (wherein the petitioner was not a party) amounted to a violation of the fundamental principles of hearing and natural justice.

Facts and Issues: Sujay Kutty was implicated under Sections 354A(1)(iv)/34 IPC, following allegations by an actress. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, had taken cognizance and issued process against Kutty without proper application of judicial mind, leading to Kutty filing a revision petition. The Sessions Judge, Alipore, dismissed this petition, relying on a High Court order in a related but separate case where Kutty was not a party. This dismissal forms the crux of the legal challenge in the present case.

Violation of Fair Hearing: The Court noted, “The petitioner has suffered an abuse of the process of the Court/law as the Learned Sessions Judge without considering the petitioner’s case on merit dismissed his application only on the basis of the High Court’s order”.

Inadvertence in High Court’s Earlier Order: The High Court acknowledged that the phrase “all the accused” in its earlier order was inadvertently used, causing prejudicial impact on the petitioner.

Restoration of Petition: The High Court directed that Criminal Motion No. 222 of 2016 be restored and heard afresh by the Sessions Judge, Alipore, ensuring a fair and proper hearing for both sides.

Decision: The Calcutta High Court set aside the order of the Sessions Judge, thereby restoring the matter for proper hearing and disposal in accordance with the law. It directed the Sessions Court to act as per the given instructions within two months.

Date of Decision: 10 April 2024.

Sujay Kutty Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.

 

Latest Legal News